ABSTRACT
Trat~snational Law (1998) 529-619, at 609-610. 29 See Anne-Marie Slaughter, 'International Law in a World of Liberal States', 6 Europea!l Joumal of l11temational Law (1995) 503-538. :;o See Jan Klabbers, 'Rebel with a Cause? Terrorists and Humanitarian Law', 14 European Journal of Intemational Law (forthcoming 2003). See also Jama Petman's contribution to this volume. 31 See Ed Morgan, 'International Law's Literature of Terror', 15 Canadian Journal of Law mid Jurisprudet~ce (2002) 317-324, at 324. ~2 Convention for the .~elioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 75 United Natio11s Treaty Series 31; Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 75 United Natiot1s Treaty Series 85; Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 Umted Natio11s Treaty Series 135; Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of \1(7ar, 75 United 1"\ratio!IS Treaty Series 287, all done in Geneva, on 12 August 1949, in force 21 October 1950. Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, in force 7 December 1978, UN Doc. A/32/144 (15 August 1977); and Protocol .-\ddirional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 ;\ugust 1949, and
The crucial difference between state and non-state terrorism lies in the available repertoire of tactics and the degree of control of the propaganda and enforcement machinery. \Vhereas State terrorists have a wide range of policy options, wield power, control and authority-and can control, for example, the intelligence service, the anny, the police, the secret polict, etc.- and can even fom1ally legitimize its [sic] terror, non-state actors usually usc acts of terror as their last and only resort.73
